May 20, 2025 • 32 mins
Daily Wire host and MAGA YouTube star Matt Walsh is losing it and calling for the destruction of the Supreme Court as we know it... for the dumbest reason. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, a woke mayor flirts with anti-white discrimination and catches a case and (another) dystopian censorship story in the United Kingdom.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So the Supreme Court has given their personal opinion. Thanks
for letting us know, guys, really interesting. I'm glad you
chimed in. Anyway, Let's get back to sporting the illegal aims.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
And a shocking twist that nobody could have seen coming.
Internet political discourse is getting kind of unhinged. We're going
to break down the latest controversial take from mega YouTube
star Matt Walsh that's going viral, plus awoke Mayor messes
(00:29):
around and finds out, and a disturbing censorship case involving
jail time over tweets in the United Kingdom. All this
and so much more is coming up in today's episode
of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where
I take on the craziest ideas across the Internet, our media,
and our politics, all from an independent perspective. Up first,
(00:51):
like I've mentioned, we got to check in with Matt Walsh,
the daily wire host who's perhaps best known for his
honestly really interesting documentaries like what is a Woman? And
Am I Racist? But whose firebrand daily political commentary from
a very right wing perspective tends to make waves and
his episode yesterday is no exception because he went on
(01:12):
a rant about the Supreme Court that made me raise
my eyebrows many, many, many times. The context for this, guys,
is that the Supreme Court is controlled by a Republican majority,
including three justices actually appointed by Trump himself, and they
just ruled in a narrow case about just the scope
of a handful of deportations that the Trump administration couldn't
(01:37):
deport certain immigrants the way they were doing so under
the Alien and Enemies Act, in eighteenth century law that
the Trump administration recently invoked specifically to try to deport
certain Venezuelan nationals who they accuse of being members of
a gang. Here is Matt's initial analysis of the case.
(01:57):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Prime Court on Friday, World seven two against the Trump
administration's attempt to swiftly deport Venezuelan gang members under the
Alien Enemies Act, requiring officials to provide more than twenty
four hours for detainees to challenge their removal. Under these circumstances,
notice roughly twenty four hours before removal, devoid of information
about how to exercise due process rights to contest that
removal surely does not pass Muster the majority route the
(02:22):
unsigned decision clarified that the Court was only ruling on
the notice requirement and not whether the trumpminstration can use
the Alien Enemies Act itself. The Court stated, to be clear,
we decided we decide today only that the detainees are
entitled to more notice than was given on April eighteenth.
So this is supposed to a stop to Trump's deportation efforts.
That's the idea anyway, And this is completely bogus, it's illegitimate,
(02:47):
it's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
So it's interesting how certain Matt seems here that this
Supreme Court decision, brought to you by many of the
same justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. Remember these are
not liberal judges, is bog and illegitimate. And the confidence
with which he says that is really interesting, because based
on his initial reaction here and the very big factual
(03:09):
inaccuracies and misunderstandings that he kind of repeats after reading
the news, I would be willing to bet thousands of
dollars that Matt Walsh did not actually open up and
read the Supreme Court decision he is discussing. He just
read maybe the couple literally just a couple of paragraphs
from this Daily Wired News article and made his conclusion
based off of that, because if he had read the
(03:31):
actual Supreme Court decision, or even just like any sort
of detailed analysis about it, he would know that it
absolutely does not and is not meant to put a
stop to Trump's mass deportation efforts. This case only concerns
procedural requirements for a few hundred immigrants the Trump administration
(03:51):
is seeking to remove, so like less than a tiny
fraction of one percent of all illegal immigrants, all of
the Trump administrays normal full immigration deportation proceedings can proceed
with this ruling, and most of the Supreme Court's rulings
on this stuff under their normal authority. All this said
(04:12):
was that in the couple hundred cases involving the invocation
of the Alien Enemies Act, what the Trump administration was
doing did not meet basic due process requirements. What they
were doing was only giving these detained immigrants twenty four
hour notice that they were being detained and removed under
the Alien Enemies Act, and only twenty four hours to
(04:35):
challenge that and provide proof that hey, I do have
a documentation or I do have a legitimate claim to stay,
but no information on how they are supposed to contest
that or do that while they are detained and behind bars.
The court just ruled that the Trump administration may be
allowed to use the Alien Enemies Act to do these deportations.
They haven't reached the final conclusion on that yet, but
that that is not enough of a basic procedural fairness,
(04:59):
and so they sent it back down to the lower
courts to flesh out exactly what that has to look
like in perhaps a little bit more detail. Maybe they
might have to have a week's notice, Maybe they might
have to have two weeks notice. Maybe they might have
to be able to access an immigration attorney and have
a chance to file on appeal or a petition. But
they're still being detained. First of all, they don't have
(05:20):
to be released, and they can still be removed, just
not in literally twenty four hours. And we're again only
talking about a couple hundred immigrants here, not the whole
state of Trump's mass deportation agenda. Honestly, this clip really
just made me wonder whether Matt had any idea what
he was talking about. But it's the next part of
his segment where he calls her something breathtakingly radical That
(05:44):
surprised me because I don't even really consider it very conservative.
Stay a listen to the next clip from Matt's show.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Trump should ignore it. That's the only answer. The Supreme
Court doesn't have the authority to tell the president that
he can't deport illegal aliens. They don't have the authority
two set up to set policy on you know, on
how that is carried out. They don't have any authority
to do that. It's nice that they've given their opinion.
So the Supreme Court has given their personal opinion that
(06:13):
they think, you know, if you're going to deport an
illegal alien, that should get more than twenty four hours notice.
That's their personal opinion. Thanks for letting us know, guys.
Really interesting. I'm glad you chimed in. Really interesting opinion.
Thanks for that. Anyway, let's get back to deporting the
illegal aliens like that. That has to be the answer
(06:34):
because they don't have the authority. So Trump should just
ignore them. And what are they going to do about it?
What are they going to do about it? There's no
enforcement mechanism. They can't compel him to do anything. So
ignore them. And where does that lead? What happens? I
don't know, but it's this comes to a head. It's
time for this to come to a head. The judicial
branch thinks that it can usurp the authority of the
(06:57):
executive branch. And the only way to put a check
on this match and that's the only way to shut
down this power grab by the judicial branch is to
disregard them and dare them to try and do anything
about it.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Wow. So this really is kind of a breath takingly
radical stance to take, especially for a conservative. And I'll
get into that in a minute. But what he's calling
for is for the Trump administration to defy the Supreme Court,
to go full Andrew Jackson and simply say we are
not going to respect the legitimacy or authority of binding
(07:31):
rulings from the highest court. And he is correct that
technically they don't have enforcement power, but presidents have in
modern history simply deferred to their decisions out of respect
for our system of checks and bounces, even when those
decisions cut against their agenda. President Biden, for example, had
many aspects of his policies struck down by the Supreme Court,
(07:54):
including his attempt at a COVID nineteen vaccine mandate. His
so called diviction, more gum, and a bunch of other things.
And in every case love him or hate him, and
I thought he really abused his executive power to enact
those policies. He abided by the decision. Even in the
much discussed Supreme Court's decision striking down Biden's student loan programs,
(08:17):
where conservatives will and Republicans will sometimes claim Biden defied
the Supreme Court, he actually didn't. The specific program that
the Supreme Court struck down, Biden abandoned and did not
move forward with. He then tried other ways of canceling
student debt. So at most you could say he tried
to work around the Supreme Court. But that is allowed,
that is within the bounds of the normal system. And
(08:38):
then there were further court cases challenging the legality of
those programs, to which Biden did adhere to the decisions
that came from them. So the thing about this is,
even if you agree with wanting Trump to be able
to deport these people quicker, if you set the standard
with Trump as president that you can just ignore the
Supreme Court, even one that if anything, is control conservative
(09:01):
justices and is biased, probably in a Republican direction. So
the fact that they're ruling against Trump should, if anything,
probably prompt some introspection, like, maybe Trump's wrong on the law.
This isn't some obstructionist liberal court, to be very clear,
but if Trump were to follow Matt's advice and just
openly defy the Supreme Court in this kind of fashion,
you would essentially be blowing up our system of checks
(09:23):
and balances. You would be setting a precedent that the
judicial branch can no longer constrain executive actions. And the
next time a Democrat is president and they do illegal
or unconstitutional things and the Supreme Court rules that way,
they can just similarly say they think the decision is
wrong and not follow it. Why would you ever want
to go down that path? As a conservative who's supposed
(09:45):
to want to conserve American institutions and our constitutional order
and our systems of checks and balances, It almost sounds
like Matt Walsh's not a conservative, but like a radical
who wants to burn down the system. That's not my
understanding of what conservatism is supposed to be or mean.
And also, really over this over speeding up the deportation
(10:07):
of like two hundred people, you would burn the whole
system to the ground, other than just keep them in
detention and wait weeks or maybe even months to deport
them and comply with this ruling. There's something so intemperate
and radical about that, and there's just so little thought
seemingly given to the implications of it that I really
(10:28):
find it breathtaking. And again, it's just all rooted on
some pretty serious misunderstandings, like what Matt said in this
next clip.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
Also, just on this due process thing for a moment.
You know, the Supreme Court is concerned about the due
process rights of illegal aliens. And this is what we
hear all the time now from the left about the
due process. First of all, illegal aliens have no legal
rights in this country at all, and that they're not citizens.
(10:58):
The Constitution does not cut them. The Constitution of the
United States of America is for the United States of America.
It's not for the entire world. The Constitution doesn't apply
to every far flung corner of the planet. It's for Americans.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Oh, in this part, Matt's just basically factually incorrect. Obviously,
illegal immigrants don't have the same legal rights as citizens.
There are levels and distinctions to this, but there is
ample Supreme Court precedent establishing that they are entitled to
some legal rights under our constitution, and even just the
very language of the Constitution itself makes that clear. Fifth
(11:36):
and fourteenth Amendment, for example, both say that persons are
entitled to due process of law and to not be
deprived of their liberty or their property and so on,
or their life without due process of law. They do
not say citizens, and that was an intentional choice by
the people who wrote this document. But anybody present in
the United States does have some degree of due process rights.
(11:59):
You also don't have to take my word for it.
I mean, the very famous conservative Supreme Court justice, the
late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was asked about this
by an interviewer once alongside his friend Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
the liberal justice, and he very much agreed that they
are entitled to the five freedoms, which he's referring to
constitutional rights like due process. Take a listen to this clip.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Do undocumented immigrants have the five freedoms?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Oh? I think so.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
I think anybody who's present in the United States.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Has protections under the United States Constitution.
Speaker 4 (12:41):
The Fourteenth Amendment. It doesn't speak of citizens, as some
constitutions grant rights to citizens, but all constitutions says persons,
and the person is every person who is here, documented
or undocumented.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
So what Matt is suggesting here is contradicted by like
a very plain reading of the text of the Constitution itself,
by many Supreme Court cases establishing that there is some
degree of constitutional rights afforded to immigrants or illegal immigrants,
even though it's not the same amount of legal rights
as citizens, and even by the likes of antonin Scalia.
(13:22):
But go Off, I guess he really doesn't seem to
understand the criticism or the pushback here as well. I mean,
take a listen to this clip.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
I mean have so the idea is if, wet, if
we deport an illegal alien who arrived here from Honduras
last week, then there's nothing stopping them from also deporting
me to my ancestral homeland where my distant relatives lived
generations ago.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Is that the idea really?
Speaker 1 (13:53):
I mean, that's like saying it's like saying that the
laws against bank robbery would mean that, like, if we
force the law against bank robbery, it would also mean
that if you go to the bank with a withdrawal
slip to legally withdraw money from your checking account, that
you might also go to jail for bank robbers.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
So, to me, a good test of whether somebody understands
an issue is how well can they articulate the opposing view,
And to Matt Wallace, clearly fails that test here because
one nobody is talking about whether or not these people
can be deported. Everyone agrees that Venezuelan illegal immigrants, especially
if they're in gangs, but even if they're not, can
(14:33):
be deported. It's a question of how can they be deported.
And the argument is simply that apprehending people, detaining them
with twenty four hours notice, then sending them out of
the country with no information allowing them to challenge this
or prove that I'm actually not an illegal immigrant, I'm
a legal immigrant with a green card or with a
work visa, or heck, I'm a United States citizen. The
(14:53):
argument is that if you're deporting people in that way,
with that little process, one that violates their rights to
basic due process and fairness, and two people who shouldn't
be deported will be swept up in that. And we've
already seen that happen many times over the years in
our immigration system. The Government Accountability Office found that from
twenty fifteen through twenty twenty, ice agents arrested six hundred
(15:17):
and seventy four, detained one hundred and twenty one, and
removed seventy potential US citizens. And that was all under
the traditional process, not this expedited you know, Alien Enemies
Act Quick Removal. So mistakes can happen, which is why
you have to have some basic semblance of process. I
don't understand what's so hard about that to understand. For
his bank robbery, the analogy, the real analogy there would be, well,
(15:40):
if we prosecute actual bank robbers in ways that don't
give them a fair chance to protest their innocence, then
people who don't rob banks may be charged with it
mistakenly and found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. You know,
something that has happened many times in our criminal justice system,
where people are prosecuted wrongly or convicted of crimes and
(16:01):
later exonerate it. It's just one final clip of Matt
that I want to talk about. Take a listen to
this where he kind of wraps things up.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
And it's all about as we know, you know, they
don't care about due process or putting a process in place.
What they want is is they're trying to throw roadblocks
into the middle of the process. They want to prevent
the process. They want to sabotage a process, not you know,
in state one.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
So that might be true for some of the left
wing immigration advocates who are bringing cases and challenging this stuff,
they really don't want mass deportations, and you know, fair enough,
but that is absolutely not true about the current conservative
majority Supreme Court. In fact, I think the same day
Matt recorded this episode, maybe the day after, the Supreme
(16:44):
Court released another ruling allowing one of the Trump administration's
mass deportation programs to continue, where they revoked status that
was granted a temporary status by the Biden administration to
a huge group of immigrants from Venezuela. As The New
York Times reports, a federal judge had block the administration's
plan to remove the temporary protected status of more than
three hundred thousand immigrants. The Supreme Court just allowed Trump
(17:07):
to lift that, setting the stage and the green light
for him to deportment of these people. Because they're not
just obstructionists They're not just obstructing him for its own sake.
They genuinely are upholding their view of the constitution and
the rule of law. And that's why it's so nonsensical
to suggest that we should tear up our whole system,
even when Conservatives control the Supreme Court in what like
(17:29):
a temper tantrum about impatience in achieving tiny percentages of
deportations now, not months or weeks from now. The whole
thing is so bizarre to me and kind of an
indictment of this form of media that I do participate in,
to be clear, this YouTube podcast commentary sphere. It's like
the incentives are always towards being more radical and angry
(17:52):
and extreme because that gets you attention and gets you clicks.
And it's why Matt Walsh has I don't know twenty
times as many subscribers as me or what it may be.
But you can't do that so far that you leave logic, principle,
and common sense behind, At least in my view, you
really should. What do you guys think? Do you agree
with me? Do you agree with Matt? Do let me
(18:13):
know in the comments below. Do you hit that like
button and make sure subscribed If you aren't yet, remember
to check out my merch linked in the description. We
just dropped a new line of items featuring the I'm
on my last brain cell thing that I say all
the time on this show. And check out my second
channel linked to the description, where I'm uloading bonus content
and my TV appearances. Plus send me voice notes for
(18:34):
my Friday episodes where I react to your woe car
stories and your personal dilemmas and give you my take
and my advice. The link to that is in the
description as well. Up next. You hate to see it
when somebody plays stupid games and wins stupid prizes, but
that is exactly what happened to the radical, woke mayor
of Chicago when he said this at a recent event
(18:58):
this past weekend. Take a listen and warning guys, this
is a crazy thing to say out loud.
Speaker 5 (19:03):
Some detractors that will push back on me and say,
you know, the only thing that the mayor talks about
is the hiring of black people. Know what I'm saying
is when you hire our people, we always look out
for everybody else. We are the most generous people on
the planet. I don't know too many cultures that have
(19:25):
play cousins. That's how generous we are. We just make
somebody a family member, right, This is how we are.
And so business and economic neighborhood development. The Deputy mayor
is a black woman. Department of Planning and Development it's
a black woman. Infrastructure Deputy mayor is a black woman.
(19:48):
Chief Operations officer is a black man. Budget director it's
a black woman. Senior advisor is a black man. And
I'm laying that out because when you when you ask
how do we ensure that our people get a chance
to grow?
Speaker 2 (20:06):
So, this woke progressive mayor actually just suggested that black
people are more generous than other races. No, they're just
people like anybody else, and individuals can be greedy or
great or kind or mean. It's like bizarre racial stereotyping
going on here. And then he's bragging about all the
(20:27):
black people he's appointed to, you know, his city government,
which if those are the best people for the job, great,
But he just kind of said that he is staffing
his team with black people because he thinks they're like
somehow superior to others, which one is a wild thing
to admit, two is not true. Everybody is created equal,
and all races should be equal in society and under
(20:50):
the law. Just imagine if a white mayor said the
opposite like that would be a national scandal. And this
really should be too. It is fine to support for
us living in a pluralistic and diverse society. I do
absolutely I think we should be respectful of people of
all backgrounds, treat everyone fairly, treat everyone the same. But
(21:11):
this progressive vision of like pro identity, active pro minority discrimination,
or even stereotyping in the opposite direction is not progressive
at all. It seems like deeply toxic and divisive and
radical and regressive, and it's almost certainly illegal because this
mayor went up on that stage and bragged about this,
(21:34):
and now he's being investigated by the Department of Justice.
The New York Times reports that the Justice Department says
it will investigate Chicago after the mayor's remarks about black hires.
The Trump administration said on Monday that had opened a
civil rights investigation into the City of Chicago to see
if it's mayor or others had engaged in a pattern
of discrimination by hiring a number of black people to
(21:56):
senior positions. The Justice department's Civil Rights Division posted on
social media a letter it sent to Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson,
quoting remarks he made Sunday at a local church in
which he praised the number of black people in top
city jobs. So this is just an investigation, and maybe
they look into it and there's no there there, And
he didn't openly discriminate against anyone. He just happened to
(22:18):
hire the best people for the job for all these
roles he listed, in every case it was a black person.
Maybe that's the truth. I don't know what the truth is,
but I certainly think when you're this open and brazen
about it, and it is illegal to discriminate on the
basis of race or gender or anything else in the
basis of these protected characteristics under civil rights law, it
(22:38):
is absolutely illegal to do that in government hiring. And
it's worthy of at least looking into in a fair
and objective investigation. And if that's what this is, it
shouldn't be like a politicized witch hunt or anything. But
if that's what it is, then I support that, because
let's be so for real, it is not some right
wing conspiracy theory to suspect that in institutions or organizations
(23:01):
controlled by ultra left wing progressives, anti white or anti
mail or whatever, different forms of discrimination have occurred. I mean,
we've covered on this show businesses and even colleges and
government organizations where they've been busted for specifically saying we're
only looking to hire a woman of color for this role,
(23:23):
which is incredibly illegal, not allowed, but they put it in.
Writing journalist Jesse Single wrote a grade article that I'll
link to titled of course liberal institutions are engaging in
illegal hiring practices on the basis of race. He says
this will turn out to have been a very bad idea.
He explains that if you work inside liberal media or
government or nonprofit organizations, it has been just made clear
(23:47):
at times that in certain roles they're not looking to
hire a white person. People either didn't seem to realize
how illegal that was, or they did, and that's why
they didn't always put those requests in writing. Washington Post
journalist Megan mccartal similarly wrote on Twitter, I've talked about
this with lawyers because I've been repeatedly surprised when folks
I didn't know very well would openly say to me
(24:07):
that they were looking to hire a woman of color
for exposition. I understood that this was illegal. They very
clearly did not. I don't know for sure whether the
city government of Chicago is guilty of this or not,
but I do think it should be investigated. But I
think it's undeniable that some institutions and organizations have engaged
in this kind of discrimination and it's not legal, it's
(24:28):
not moral, and it's not okay. There should be a reckoning.
People should be held to account for it. And I
think now that we have a Republican led Department of
Justice and its Civil Rights Division that actually wants to
look into this stuff, rather than the Biden administration, which
I think would probably turn a blind eye to a
lot of this, I think they may go looking for
it and they might come up with a lot of
(24:51):
very damning receipts because I imagine that what some of these
folks like Megan and Jesse are saying is probably true,
and that a lot of these institutions and organization were
brazen about their illegal discrimination in ways that wasn't very smart,
because they felt kind of invincible because these laws weren't
being enforced and it felt like culturally it was moving
(25:11):
in this dei direction. But now, even just a few
years later, when those emails get subpoena and those slack
messages get brought in as court evidence, I think there's
going to be some serious skeletons in a lot of
people's closets. And I support accountability for where this stuff
has been allowed to fester, because it's not just illegal.
(25:33):
I mean, I really do think it's immoral and wrong
to discriminate against people on the basis of their immutable
characteristics in any direction, and I think most tragically, it
reinforces the divides between these groups and racial strife and
gender wars and all this stuff where I think most
Americans like me want to live in a world where
this stuff fades into the background and isn't the defining
(25:55):
aspect of our lives, and we're not so sharply divided
into these groups. Well, reverse discrimination just as much as
old fashioned discrimination makes that dream less and less realistic.
So I support it being cragged down upon. But you'll
let me know what you think in the comments. Up next,
we got to check in with the UK because they
are not okay. I mean, this latest censorship story, this
(26:18):
latest free speech nightmare out of the UK. Guys, Well,
we're going to take a listen to some reporting from
gb News, the right leaning news source over in the UK.
But honestly, this is just dystopian.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Extraordinary breaking news which you just heard there from Sam Francis.
Lucy Connelly. She's the wife of a Conservative councilor. Her
appeal against the thirty one month sentence for putting out
an intemperate tweet in the aftermath of the Southport murders
has been dismissed, so she will remain in prison. She's
not particularly she's.
Speaker 6 (26:52):
Let's just have a minute to think about this country, right.
This is a mother who has now got two hundred
and eight four days to remain away from her child
and her husband and who knows her parents, maybe her
extended family, because she wrote one angry post on social media,
(27:14):
and she also says that this is because she herself
had had was suffering from bereavement. Telly what she said.
This was in the wake of the stabbings in Southport.
Her post read on ex Twitter mass deportation now set
fire to all the bleep hotels full of bleeps for
all I care if that makes me racist. So be it.
(27:37):
It was up for about three and a half hours.
It was viewed three hundred thousand times. She thought that
was probably a mistake, wasn't it. I let my anger
get in the way. She deleted it.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Thirty one months in jail, nearly three.
Speaker 6 (27:51):
Years, the implication being of this.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
This is being overflowing. By the way, what does.
Speaker 6 (27:58):
It mean if you live in a country where you
can't express your views, no matter how unpalatable they might
be to other people, that you could literally have a
knock on the door, You get arrested, you get put
into prison, you get taken away from your children. What
good does this do other than to tell you at home,
keep your voices shut, wind your necks in. I don't
(28:18):
want you to say what you think. This is what
this government are telling us.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Wow, just wow, nearly three years in jail for an
angry and unhinged tweet. That is not something that happens
in a free country, or in a country with any
semblance of free speech, y'all. It is simply not. You'll
be clear, her tweet was wrong. You should never in
this clearly. I don't think was meant literally. It was
meant in an inflammatory and hyperbolic way. You should never
(28:44):
call for violence in any way, no matter how upset
you are about. In this case, it was in the
aftermath of a tragic crime that I think they believed
to be committed by an illegal immigrant, turned out not
to be. But anyway, it was this passionate thing she
deleted just a few hours after she posts today it
was wrong, it was irresponsible. Maybe she should have been
banned from Twitter from it, or faced some sort of
(29:05):
civil consequence like in society. Maybe she could have gotten
pushed back from friends and families saying, like, you went
too far, delete this. But the idea that it is
a criminal matter, or that somebody would be put behind
bars for years simply because of, like the host said,
an intemperate or angry tweet in the aftermath of a tragedy,
(29:26):
that is dystopian, That is orwellian. And I know that
stuff gets overused and people are like very quick to
say that, but it really is. And it's not just
this one woman. This is a widespread phenomenon in the
United Kingdom, our cultural neighbors, who at least historically had
a proud tradition in their common law of free speech
(29:49):
in an open society. Well, they've now gone this really
disturbing in dark path and there's extensive reporting on this.
I've talked about that on the show before, of hundreds
and even thousands of people being investigated, charged, and in
some cases imprisoned over social media posts. Like there's such
a clear chilling effect from that. In a democratic society
(30:09):
where everyone's supposed to voice their views, you're supposed to
hash it all out and then may the best idea win.
You can't do that when people are afraid to speak
in anger or in passion because they might end up
going to jail for years. We're not even talking about
paying a fine and like getting in trouble and having
to go to court. We're talking about multiple years in prison.
And I mean, I am more sympathetic because it's the
(30:31):
she's a mother, she has kids she'll miss out on. Legally,
that's not really relevant because I mean, if two people
commit the same crime, it should be the same punishment,
regardless of their personal circumstances. But it does make you
feel worse for the woman just personally. And this is
what I always come back to with these crazy stories,
Like to some extent, I'm like wow, and I just
marvel at the insane nature of it all across the pond.
(30:52):
But I always come back to this important truth. This
would absolutely happen in some blue states in America, or
maybe some red states on some other issues, if we
did not have a First Amendment that was robustly upheld
by our legal system. It's not perfect, doesn't always do
the job, but by and large, it ensures that this
(31:13):
kind of dystopian thing could never happen in the United States,
and for that it should be cherished and jealously protected
and defend it from people on either side who would
chip away at it. Or we could very well end
up just a few years down the road with situations
like this happening in our country. And that's not something
I ever want to see happen. All right, guys, that'll
(31:36):
be it for today's episode of the Brad Versus Everyone Podcast.
Thank you all so much for tuning in. Please do
make sure you subscribe if you aren't yet, to hit
that leg button before you go. Let me know your
thoughts on today's episode in the comments. Do remember to
check out my second bonus channel, send in voice Notes,
check out the Merged YadA YadA ya, and we'll talk
again real soon.
So the Supreme Court has given their personal opinion. Thanks
for letting us know, guys, really interesting. I'm glad you
chimed in. Anyway, Let's get back to sporting the illegal aims.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
And a shocking twist that nobody could have seen coming.
Internet political discourse is getting kind of unhinged. We're going
to break down the latest controversial take from mega YouTube
star Matt Walsh that's going viral, plus awoke Mayor messes
(00:29):
around and finds out, and a disturbing censorship case involving
jail time over tweets in the United Kingdom. All this
and so much more is coming up in today's episode
of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where
I take on the craziest ideas across the Internet, our media,
and our politics, all from an independent perspective. Up first,
(00:51):
like I've mentioned, we got to check in with Matt Walsh,
the daily wire host who's perhaps best known for his
honestly really interesting documentaries like what is a Woman? And
Am I Racist? But whose firebrand daily political commentary from
a very right wing perspective tends to make waves and
his episode yesterday is no exception because he went on
(01:12):
a rant about the Supreme Court that made me raise
my eyebrows many, many, many times. The context for this, guys,
is that the Supreme Court is controlled by a Republican majority,
including three justices actually appointed by Trump himself, and they
just ruled in a narrow case about just the scope
of a handful of deportations that the Trump administration couldn't
(01:37):
deport certain immigrants the way they were doing so under
the Alien and Enemies Act, in eighteenth century law that
the Trump administration recently invoked specifically to try to deport
certain Venezuelan nationals who they accuse of being members of
a gang. Here is Matt's initial analysis of the case.
(01:57):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Prime Court on Friday, World seven two against the Trump
administration's attempt to swiftly deport Venezuelan gang members under the
Alien Enemies Act, requiring officials to provide more than twenty
four hours for detainees to challenge their removal. Under these circumstances,
notice roughly twenty four hours before removal, devoid of information
about how to exercise due process rights to contest that
removal surely does not pass Muster the majority route the
(02:22):
unsigned decision clarified that the Court was only ruling on
the notice requirement and not whether the trumpminstration can use
the Alien Enemies Act itself. The Court stated, to be clear,
we decided we decide today only that the detainees are
entitled to more notice than was given on April eighteenth.
So this is supposed to a stop to Trump's deportation efforts.
That's the idea anyway, And this is completely bogus, it's illegitimate,
(02:47):
it's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
So it's interesting how certain Matt seems here that this
Supreme Court decision, brought to you by many of the
same justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. Remember these are
not liberal judges, is bog and illegitimate. And the confidence
with which he says that is really interesting, because based
on his initial reaction here and the very big factual
(03:09):
inaccuracies and misunderstandings that he kind of repeats after reading
the news, I would be willing to bet thousands of
dollars that Matt Walsh did not actually open up and
read the Supreme Court decision he is discussing. He just
read maybe the couple literally just a couple of paragraphs
from this Daily Wired News article and made his conclusion
based off of that, because if he had read the
(03:31):
actual Supreme Court decision, or even just like any sort
of detailed analysis about it, he would know that it
absolutely does not and is not meant to put a
stop to Trump's mass deportation efforts. This case only concerns
procedural requirements for a few hundred immigrants the Trump administration
(03:51):
is seeking to remove, so like less than a tiny
fraction of one percent of all illegal immigrants, all of
the Trump administrays normal full immigration deportation proceedings can proceed
with this ruling, and most of the Supreme Court's rulings
on this stuff under their normal authority. All this said
(04:12):
was that in the couple hundred cases involving the invocation
of the Alien Enemies Act, what the Trump administration was
doing did not meet basic due process requirements. What they
were doing was only giving these detained immigrants twenty four
hour notice that they were being detained and removed under
the Alien Enemies Act, and only twenty four hours to
(04:35):
challenge that and provide proof that hey, I do have
a documentation or I do have a legitimate claim to stay,
but no information on how they are supposed to contest
that or do that while they are detained and behind bars.
The court just ruled that the Trump administration may be
allowed to use the Alien Enemies Act to do these deportations.
They haven't reached the final conclusion on that yet, but
that that is not enough of a basic procedural fairness,
(04:59):
and so they sent it back down to the lower
courts to flesh out exactly what that has to look
like in perhaps a little bit more detail. Maybe they
might have to have a week's notice, Maybe they might
have to have two weeks notice. Maybe they might have
to be able to access an immigration attorney and have
a chance to file on appeal or a petition. But
they're still being detained. First of all, they don't have
(05:20):
to be released, and they can still be removed, just
not in literally twenty four hours. And we're again only
talking about a couple hundred immigrants here, not the whole
state of Trump's mass deportation agenda. Honestly, this clip really
just made me wonder whether Matt had any idea what
he was talking about. But it's the next part of
his segment where he calls her something breathtakingly radical That
(05:44):
surprised me because I don't even really consider it very conservative.
Stay a listen to the next clip from Matt's show.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Trump should ignore it. That's the only answer. The Supreme
Court doesn't have the authority to tell the president that
he can't deport illegal aliens. They don't have the authority
two set up to set policy on you know, on
how that is carried out. They don't have any authority
to do that. It's nice that they've given their opinion.
So the Supreme Court has given their personal opinion that
(06:13):
they think, you know, if you're going to deport an
illegal alien, that should get more than twenty four hours notice.
That's their personal opinion. Thanks for letting us know, guys.
Really interesting. I'm glad you chimed in. Really interesting opinion.
Thanks for that. Anyway, let's get back to deporting the
illegal aliens like that. That has to be the answer
(06:34):
because they don't have the authority. So Trump should just
ignore them. And what are they going to do about it?
What are they going to do about it? There's no
enforcement mechanism. They can't compel him to do anything. So
ignore them. And where does that lead? What happens? I
don't know, but it's this comes to a head. It's
time for this to come to a head. The judicial
branch thinks that it can usurp the authority of the
(06:57):
executive branch. And the only way to put a check
on this match and that's the only way to shut
down this power grab by the judicial branch is to
disregard them and dare them to try and do anything
about it.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Wow. So this really is kind of a breath takingly
radical stance to take, especially for a conservative. And I'll
get into that in a minute. But what he's calling
for is for the Trump administration to defy the Supreme Court,
to go full Andrew Jackson and simply say we are
not going to respect the legitimacy or authority of binding
(07:31):
rulings from the highest court. And he is correct that
technically they don't have enforcement power, but presidents have in
modern history simply deferred to their decisions out of respect
for our system of checks and bounces, even when those
decisions cut against their agenda. President Biden, for example, had
many aspects of his policies struck down by the Supreme Court,
(07:54):
including his attempt at a COVID nineteen vaccine mandate. His
so called diviction, more gum, and a bunch of other things.
And in every case love him or hate him, and
I thought he really abused his executive power to enact
those policies. He abided by the decision. Even in the
much discussed Supreme Court's decision striking down Biden's student loan programs,
(08:17):
where conservatives will and Republicans will sometimes claim Biden defied
the Supreme Court, he actually didn't. The specific program that
the Supreme Court struck down, Biden abandoned and did not
move forward with. He then tried other ways of canceling
student debt. So at most you could say he tried
to work around the Supreme Court. But that is allowed,
that is within the bounds of the normal system. And
(08:38):
then there were further court cases challenging the legality of
those programs, to which Biden did adhere to the decisions
that came from them. So the thing about this is,
even if you agree with wanting Trump to be able
to deport these people quicker, if you set the standard
with Trump as president that you can just ignore the
Supreme Court, even one that if anything, is control conservative
(09:01):
justices and is biased, probably in a Republican direction. So
the fact that they're ruling against Trump should, if anything,
probably prompt some introspection, like, maybe Trump's wrong on the law.
This isn't some obstructionist liberal court, to be very clear,
but if Trump were to follow Matt's advice and just
openly defy the Supreme Court in this kind of fashion,
you would essentially be blowing up our system of checks
(09:23):
and balances. You would be setting a precedent that the
judicial branch can no longer constrain executive actions. And the
next time a Democrat is president and they do illegal
or unconstitutional things and the Supreme Court rules that way,
they can just similarly say they think the decision is
wrong and not follow it. Why would you ever want
to go down that path? As a conservative who's supposed
(09:45):
to want to conserve American institutions and our constitutional order
and our systems of checks and balances, It almost sounds
like Matt Walsh's not a conservative, but like a radical
who wants to burn down the system. That's not my
understanding of what conservatism is supposed to be or mean.
And also, really over this over speeding up the deportation
(10:07):
of like two hundred people, you would burn the whole
system to the ground, other than just keep them in
detention and wait weeks or maybe even months to deport
them and comply with this ruling. There's something so intemperate
and radical about that, and there's just so little thought
seemingly given to the implications of it that I really
(10:28):
find it breathtaking. And again, it's just all rooted on
some pretty serious misunderstandings, like what Matt said in this
next clip.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
Also, just on this due process thing for a moment.
You know, the Supreme Court is concerned about the due
process rights of illegal aliens. And this is what we
hear all the time now from the left about the
due process. First of all, illegal aliens have no legal
rights in this country at all, and that they're not citizens.
(10:58):
The Constitution does not cut them. The Constitution of the
United States of America is for the United States of America.
It's not for the entire world. The Constitution doesn't apply
to every far flung corner of the planet. It's for Americans.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Oh, in this part, Matt's just basically factually incorrect. Obviously,
illegal immigrants don't have the same legal rights as citizens.
There are levels and distinctions to this, but there is
ample Supreme Court precedent establishing that they are entitled to
some legal rights under our constitution, and even just the
very language of the Constitution itself makes that clear. Fifth
(11:36):
and fourteenth Amendment, for example, both say that persons are
entitled to due process of law and to not be
deprived of their liberty or their property and so on,
or their life without due process of law. They do
not say citizens, and that was an intentional choice by
the people who wrote this document. But anybody present in
the United States does have some degree of due process rights.
(11:59):
You also don't have to take my word for it.
I mean, the very famous conservative Supreme Court justice, the
late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was asked about this
by an interviewer once alongside his friend Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
the liberal justice, and he very much agreed that they
are entitled to the five freedoms, which he's referring to
constitutional rights like due process. Take a listen to this clip.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Do undocumented immigrants have the five freedoms?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Oh? I think so.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
I think anybody who's present in the United States.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Has protections under the United States Constitution.
Speaker 4 (12:41):
The Fourteenth Amendment. It doesn't speak of citizens, as some
constitutions grant rights to citizens, but all constitutions says persons,
and the person is every person who is here, documented
or undocumented.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
So what Matt is suggesting here is contradicted by like
a very plain reading of the text of the Constitution itself,
by many Supreme Court cases establishing that there is some
degree of constitutional rights afforded to immigrants or illegal immigrants,
even though it's not the same amount of legal rights
as citizens, and even by the likes of antonin Scalia.
(13:22):
But go Off, I guess he really doesn't seem to
understand the criticism or the pushback here as well. I mean,
take a listen to this clip.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
I mean have so the idea is if, wet, if
we deport an illegal alien who arrived here from Honduras
last week, then there's nothing stopping them from also deporting
me to my ancestral homeland where my distant relatives lived
generations ago.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Is that the idea really?
Speaker 1 (13:53):
I mean, that's like saying it's like saying that the
laws against bank robbery would mean that, like, if we
force the law against bank robbery, it would also mean
that if you go to the bank with a withdrawal
slip to legally withdraw money from your checking account, that
you might also go to jail for bank robbers.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
So, to me, a good test of whether somebody understands
an issue is how well can they articulate the opposing view,
And to Matt Wallace, clearly fails that test here because
one nobody is talking about whether or not these people
can be deported. Everyone agrees that Venezuelan illegal immigrants, especially
if they're in gangs, but even if they're not, can
(14:33):
be deported. It's a question of how can they be deported.
And the argument is simply that apprehending people, detaining them
with twenty four hours notice, then sending them out of
the country with no information allowing them to challenge this
or prove that I'm actually not an illegal immigrant, I'm
a legal immigrant with a green card or with a
work visa, or heck, I'm a United States citizen. The
(14:53):
argument is that if you're deporting people in that way,
with that little process, one that violates their rights to
basic due process and fairness, and two people who shouldn't
be deported will be swept up in that. And we've
already seen that happen many times over the years in
our immigration system. The Government Accountability Office found that from
twenty fifteen through twenty twenty, ice agents arrested six hundred
(15:17):
and seventy four, detained one hundred and twenty one, and
removed seventy potential US citizens. And that was all under
the traditional process, not this expedited you know, Alien Enemies
Act Quick Removal. So mistakes can happen, which is why
you have to have some basic semblance of process. I
don't understand what's so hard about that to understand. For
his bank robbery, the analogy, the real analogy there would be, well,
(15:40):
if we prosecute actual bank robbers in ways that don't
give them a fair chance to protest their innocence, then
people who don't rob banks may be charged with it
mistakenly and found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. You know,
something that has happened many times in our criminal justice system,
where people are prosecuted wrongly or convicted of crimes and
(16:01):
later exonerate it. It's just one final clip of Matt
that I want to talk about. Take a listen to
this where he kind of wraps things up.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
And it's all about as we know, you know, they
don't care about due process or putting a process in place.
What they want is is they're trying to throw roadblocks
into the middle of the process. They want to prevent
the process. They want to sabotage a process, not you know,
in state one.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
So that might be true for some of the left
wing immigration advocates who are bringing cases and challenging this stuff,
they really don't want mass deportations, and you know, fair enough,
but that is absolutely not true about the current conservative
majority Supreme Court. In fact, I think the same day
Matt recorded this episode, maybe the day after, the Supreme
(16:44):
Court released another ruling allowing one of the Trump administration's
mass deportation programs to continue, where they revoked status that
was granted a temporary status by the Biden administration to
a huge group of immigrants from Venezuela. As The New
York Times reports, a federal judge had block the administration's
plan to remove the temporary protected status of more than
three hundred thousand immigrants. The Supreme Court just allowed Trump
(17:07):
to lift that, setting the stage and the green light
for him to deportment of these people. Because they're not
just obstructionists They're not just obstructing him for its own sake.
They genuinely are upholding their view of the constitution and
the rule of law. And that's why it's so nonsensical
to suggest that we should tear up our whole system,
even when Conservatives control the Supreme Court in what like
(17:29):
a temper tantrum about impatience in achieving tiny percentages of
deportations now, not months or weeks from now. The whole
thing is so bizarre to me and kind of an
indictment of this form of media that I do participate in,
to be clear, this YouTube podcast commentary sphere. It's like
the incentives are always towards being more radical and angry
(17:52):
and extreme because that gets you attention and gets you clicks.
And it's why Matt Walsh has I don't know twenty
times as many subscribers as me or what it may be.
But you can't do that so far that you leave logic, principle,
and common sense behind, At least in my view, you
really should. What do you guys think? Do you agree
with me? Do you agree with Matt? Do let me
(18:13):
know in the comments below. Do you hit that like
button and make sure subscribed If you aren't yet, remember
to check out my merch linked in the description. We
just dropped a new line of items featuring the I'm
on my last brain cell thing that I say all
the time on this show. And check out my second
channel linked to the description, where I'm uloading bonus content
and my TV appearances. Plus send me voice notes for
(18:34):
my Friday episodes where I react to your woe car
stories and your personal dilemmas and give you my take
and my advice. The link to that is in the
description as well. Up next. You hate to see it
when somebody plays stupid games and wins stupid prizes, but
that is exactly what happened to the radical, woke mayor
of Chicago when he said this at a recent event
(18:58):
this past weekend. Take a listen and warning guys, this
is a crazy thing to say out loud.
Speaker 5 (19:03):
Some detractors that will push back on me and say,
you know, the only thing that the mayor talks about
is the hiring of black people. Know what I'm saying
is when you hire our people, we always look out
for everybody else. We are the most generous people on
the planet. I don't know too many cultures that have
(19:25):
play cousins. That's how generous we are. We just make
somebody a family member, right, This is how we are.
And so business and economic neighborhood development. The Deputy mayor
is a black woman. Department of Planning and Development it's
a black woman. Infrastructure Deputy mayor is a black woman.
(19:48):
Chief Operations officer is a black man. Budget director it's
a black woman. Senior advisor is a black man. And
I'm laying that out because when you when you ask
how do we ensure that our people get a chance
to grow?
Speaker 2 (20:06):
So, this woke progressive mayor actually just suggested that black
people are more generous than other races. No, they're just
people like anybody else, and individuals can be greedy or
great or kind or mean. It's like bizarre racial stereotyping
going on here. And then he's bragging about all the
(20:27):
black people he's appointed to, you know, his city government,
which if those are the best people for the job, great,
But he just kind of said that he is staffing
his team with black people because he thinks they're like
somehow superior to others, which one is a wild thing
to admit, two is not true. Everybody is created equal,
and all races should be equal in society and under
(20:50):
the law. Just imagine if a white mayor said the
opposite like that would be a national scandal. And this
really should be too. It is fine to support for
us living in a pluralistic and diverse society. I do
absolutely I think we should be respectful of people of
all backgrounds, treat everyone fairly, treat everyone the same. But
(21:11):
this progressive vision of like pro identity, active pro minority discrimination,
or even stereotyping in the opposite direction is not progressive
at all. It seems like deeply toxic and divisive and
radical and regressive, and it's almost certainly illegal because this
mayor went up on that stage and bragged about this,
(21:34):
and now he's being investigated by the Department of Justice.
The New York Times reports that the Justice Department says
it will investigate Chicago after the mayor's remarks about black hires.
The Trump administration said on Monday that had opened a
civil rights investigation into the City of Chicago to see
if it's mayor or others had engaged in a pattern
of discrimination by hiring a number of black people to
(21:56):
senior positions. The Justice department's Civil Rights Division posted on
social media a letter it sent to Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson,
quoting remarks he made Sunday at a local church in
which he praised the number of black people in top
city jobs. So this is just an investigation, and maybe
they look into it and there's no there there, And
he didn't openly discriminate against anyone. He just happened to
(22:18):
hire the best people for the job for all these
roles he listed, in every case it was a black person.
Maybe that's the truth. I don't know what the truth is,
but I certainly think when you're this open and brazen
about it, and it is illegal to discriminate on the
basis of race or gender or anything else in the
basis of these protected characteristics under civil rights law, it
(22:38):
is absolutely illegal to do that in government hiring. And
it's worthy of at least looking into in a fair
and objective investigation. And if that's what this is, it
shouldn't be like a politicized witch hunt or anything. But
if that's what it is, then I support that, because
let's be so for real, it is not some right
wing conspiracy theory to suspect that in institutions or organizations
(23:01):
controlled by ultra left wing progressives, anti white or anti
mail or whatever, different forms of discrimination have occurred. I mean,
we've covered on this show businesses and even colleges and
government organizations where they've been busted for specifically saying we're
only looking to hire a woman of color for this role,
(23:23):
which is incredibly illegal, not allowed, but they put it in.
Writing journalist Jesse Single wrote a grade article that I'll
link to titled of course liberal institutions are engaging in
illegal hiring practices on the basis of race. He says
this will turn out to have been a very bad idea.
He explains that if you work inside liberal media or
government or nonprofit organizations, it has been just made clear
(23:47):
at times that in certain roles they're not looking to
hire a white person. People either didn't seem to realize
how illegal that was, or they did, and that's why
they didn't always put those requests in writing. Washington Post
journalist Megan mccartal similarly wrote on Twitter, I've talked about
this with lawyers because I've been repeatedly surprised when folks
I didn't know very well would openly say to me
(24:07):
that they were looking to hire a woman of color
for exposition. I understood that this was illegal. They very
clearly did not. I don't know for sure whether the
city government of Chicago is guilty of this or not,
but I do think it should be investigated. But I
think it's undeniable that some institutions and organizations have engaged
in this kind of discrimination and it's not legal, it's
(24:28):
not moral, and it's not okay. There should be a reckoning.
People should be held to account for it. And I
think now that we have a Republican led Department of
Justice and its Civil Rights Division that actually wants to
look into this stuff, rather than the Biden administration, which
I think would probably turn a blind eye to a
lot of this, I think they may go looking for
it and they might come up with a lot of
(24:51):
very damning receipts because I imagine that what some of these
folks like Megan and Jesse are saying is probably true,
and that a lot of these institutions and organization were
brazen about their illegal discrimination in ways that wasn't very smart,
because they felt kind of invincible because these laws weren't
being enforced and it felt like culturally it was moving
(25:11):
in this dei direction. But now, even just a few
years later, when those emails get subpoena and those slack
messages get brought in as court evidence, I think there's
going to be some serious skeletons in a lot of
people's closets. And I support accountability for where this stuff
has been allowed to fester, because it's not just illegal.
(25:33):
I mean, I really do think it's immoral and wrong
to discriminate against people on the basis of their immutable
characteristics in any direction, and I think most tragically, it
reinforces the divides between these groups and racial strife and
gender wars and all this stuff where I think most
Americans like me want to live in a world where
this stuff fades into the background and isn't the defining
(25:55):
aspect of our lives, and we're not so sharply divided
into these groups. Well, reverse discrimination just as much as
old fashioned discrimination makes that dream less and less realistic.
So I support it being cragged down upon. But you'll
let me know what you think in the comments. Up next,
we got to check in with the UK because they
are not okay. I mean, this latest censorship story, this
(26:18):
latest free speech nightmare out of the UK. Guys, Well,
we're going to take a listen to some reporting from
gb News, the right leaning news source over in the UK.
But honestly, this is just dystopian.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Extraordinary breaking news which you just heard there from Sam Francis.
Lucy Connelly. She's the wife of a Conservative councilor. Her
appeal against the thirty one month sentence for putting out
an intemperate tweet in the aftermath of the Southport murders
has been dismissed, so she will remain in prison. She's
not particularly she's.
Speaker 6 (26:52):
Let's just have a minute to think about this country, right.
This is a mother who has now got two hundred
and eight four days to remain away from her child
and her husband and who knows her parents, maybe her
extended family, because she wrote one angry post on social media,
(27:14):
and she also says that this is because she herself
had had was suffering from bereavement. Telly what she said.
This was in the wake of the stabbings in Southport.
Her post read on ex Twitter mass deportation now set
fire to all the bleep hotels full of bleeps for
all I care if that makes me racist. So be it.
(27:37):
It was up for about three and a half hours.
It was viewed three hundred thousand times. She thought that
was probably a mistake, wasn't it. I let my anger
get in the way. She deleted it.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Thirty one months in jail, nearly three.
Speaker 6 (27:51):
Years, the implication being of this.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
This is being overflowing. By the way, what does.
Speaker 6 (27:58):
It mean if you live in a country where you
can't express your views, no matter how unpalatable they might
be to other people, that you could literally have a
knock on the door, You get arrested, you get put
into prison, you get taken away from your children. What
good does this do other than to tell you at home,
keep your voices shut, wind your necks in. I don't
(28:18):
want you to say what you think. This is what
this government are telling us.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Wow, just wow, nearly three years in jail for an
angry and unhinged tweet. That is not something that happens
in a free country, or in a country with any
semblance of free speech, y'all. It is simply not. You'll
be clear, her tweet was wrong. You should never in
this clearly. I don't think was meant literally. It was
meant in an inflammatory and hyperbolic way. You should never
(28:44):
call for violence in any way, no matter how upset
you are about. In this case, it was in the
aftermath of a tragic crime that I think they believed
to be committed by an illegal immigrant, turned out not
to be. But anyway, it was this passionate thing she
deleted just a few hours after she posts today it
was wrong, it was irresponsible. Maybe she should have been
banned from Twitter from it, or faced some sort of
(29:05):
civil consequence like in society. Maybe she could have gotten
pushed back from friends and families saying, like, you went
too far, delete this. But the idea that it is
a criminal matter, or that somebody would be put behind
bars for years simply because of, like the host said,
an intemperate or angry tweet in the aftermath of a tragedy,
(29:26):
that is dystopian, That is orwellian. And I know that
stuff gets overused and people are like very quick to
say that, but it really is. And it's not just
this one woman. This is a widespread phenomenon in the
United Kingdom, our cultural neighbors, who at least historically had
a proud tradition in their common law of free speech
(29:49):
in an open society. Well, they've now gone this really
disturbing in dark path and there's extensive reporting on this.
I've talked about that on the show before, of hundreds
and even thousands of people being investigated, charged, and in
some cases imprisoned over social media posts. Like there's such
a clear chilling effect from that. In a democratic society
(30:09):
where everyone's supposed to voice their views, you're supposed to
hash it all out and then may the best idea win.
You can't do that when people are afraid to speak
in anger or in passion because they might end up
going to jail for years. We're not even talking about
paying a fine and like getting in trouble and having
to go to court. We're talking about multiple years in prison.
And I mean, I am more sympathetic because it's the
(30:31):
she's a mother, she has kids she'll miss out on. Legally,
that's not really relevant because I mean, if two people
commit the same crime, it should be the same punishment,
regardless of their personal circumstances. But it does make you
feel worse for the woman just personally. And this is
what I always come back to with these crazy stories,
Like to some extent, I'm like wow, and I just
marvel at the insane nature of it all across the pond.
(30:52):
But I always come back to this important truth. This
would absolutely happen in some blue states in America, or
maybe some red states on some other issues, if we
did not have a First Amendment that was robustly upheld
by our legal system. It's not perfect, doesn't always do
the job, but by and large, it ensures that this
(31:13):
kind of dystopian thing could never happen in the United States,
and for that it should be cherished and jealously protected
and defend it from people on either side who would
chip away at it. Or we could very well end
up just a few years down the road with situations
like this happening in our country. And that's not something
I ever want to see happen. All right, guys, that'll
(31:36):
be it for today's episode of the Brad Versus Everyone Podcast.
Thank you all so much for tuning in. Please do
make sure you subscribe if you aren't yet, to hit
that leg button before you go. Let me know your
thoughts on today's episode in the comments. Do remember to
check out my second bonus channel, send in voice Notes,
check out the Merged YadA YadA ya, and we'll talk
again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.